The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 30, 2013, 05:45 AM   #51
TheNatureBoy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2007
Posts: 1,181
@ FairWarning. My point exactly.

Last edited by TheNatureBoy; January 30, 2013 at 05:55 AM.
TheNatureBoy is offline  
Old January 30, 2013, 06:24 AM   #52
thedudeabides
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 22, 2012
Posts: 990
It's "capitalism" as most people will scream until they're hoarse.

I just don't return to the shops that gouge.
thedudeabides is offline  
Old January 30, 2013, 07:02 AM   #53
flybuddy
Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 22
Simple human nature..BUT, shop around..they still have competition and if you don't absolutely have a need---WAIT.
Now, the other side of the coin..I'm sure some of the folks griping would have no trouble trying to sell a gun they purchased years ago and heavily used for more than they paid for it. Used gun prices (even before the hysteria) have always amazed me. Was at a gun show (private stuff-no dealers) this past weekend and in many cases I saw crusty used stuff with price tags higher than they are new (now) at the LGS.
We all want to fetch the highest prices we can when we sell stuff (and most of us want less government intrusion)--bit hypocritical to want to have limits on your purchase prices but not your selling prices.
flybuddy is offline  
Old January 30, 2013, 09:26 AM   #54
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,423
Quote:
A comment in another thread got me thinking - is it unethical for a gun shop to raise their prices during an actual shortage?
When it comes to pricing, I see the ethics card getting played quite a bit by the folks on the consumer side of the issue. When they don't like price increases and feel the reason for the increase isn't warranted, they claim the issue of ethics when they have not other grounds to complain about not being able to buy that which they maybe should have had already.

Unlike the storm analogy, this is not a physical disaster, but like the storm analogy, this is something that folks could have (and many did) plan for. They want other people to store all the necessary good for them (like generators, ammo, or mags) to be ready when they need them at no additional cost instead of forking over the money an incurring the hardship and expense of storing for themselves. So they get caught with their pants down and when nothing illegal is being done, resort to claiming or questioning ethics.

The "shortages" right now are artificial. It isn't like the whole of the orange crop in the US was just killed in a freeze and now there are no oranges left. There is plenty of ammo and guns out there, but in private hands. Ammo and gun companies are running at full speed in most cases, producing as much as they possibly can produce and it is just being purchased by Johnny-come-lately hoarders (aka panic buyers).

We saw this in 93/94 and 2008/2009. There is no reason people should have been caught flat footed in 2012/2013. If it is a question of ethics, then the question should be as to why folks are skating by and not preparing for such a crisis before it happens.

Ethics is most definitely a 2 sided issue.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old January 30, 2013, 10:58 AM   #55
Revolver1
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 150
Unethical? You're being kind, it's SLIMEY!
Revolver1 is offline  
Old January 30, 2013, 11:18 AM   #56
BigD_in_FL
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: The "Gunshine State"
Posts: 1,981
Quote:
The "increase" in the payroll tax wasn't a "new" tax; it wasn't actually an increase, either, but rather reflected the expiration of a temporary reduction in the payroll tax that was enacted at the end of 2010, as a way to help middle- and lower-class workers in hard times.
I know about that, I am talking about the new tax, IIRC, it is $63 per person on the payroll to fund Obamacare. Regardless of which one, they have an impact on the gun store owner and these costs have to be recouped through price increases

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2273005.html
BigD_in_FL is offline  
Old January 30, 2013, 12:14 PM   #57
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,877
Thanks for the link, BigD -- I'd missed this. According to that article, it's a fee that will be added to to the cost of health plans for both employers and individuals, to offset the cost of covering folks with preexisting conditions (who are now unable to get insurance) -- so not technically a tax, but an increase in insurance premiums: a nice little gift to the big insurance companies, in other words. Sure wouldn't want them to make less money, now would we?

(And health care is actually a good example of something that should be considered a necessity, and where price-gouging really is unethical... )
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old January 30, 2013, 12:48 PM   #58
btmj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 1, 2011
Location: Near St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 766
Quote:
We saw this in 93/94 and 2008/2009. There is no reason people should have been caught flat footed in 2012/2013. If it is a question of ethics, then the question should be as to why folks are skating by and not preparing for such a crisis before it happens.
I lived through both of those, and dammit if I didn't get caught by this one. I had let myself get low on several types of ammo... 9mm and 5.56... which of course are the hardest to find right now.

I was so busy at work I was not paying attention to my supplies. I was down to 250 rounds of 9mm FMJ and 380 rounds of 5.56. I thought that over the Christmas Holidays I would get another 1000 rounds of each. But then the tragedy happened, and now I am stuck....

I use to get 9mm for ~12 per 50... and I would gladly pay twice that today. But I just can't find any.
btmj is offline  
Old January 30, 2013, 01:21 PM   #59
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 7,829
To the OP - NO! In fact, it would be un-American not to sell his guns for what he can get for them.

Ask yourself this - Were you willing to pay twice the going price for an average AK when there were gobs of them, just to keep your LGS in business???
Skans is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 01:58 AM   #60
S_Constitutionist
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2009
Posts: 317
Buyers set prices, not the shop owners. End of story.
S_Constitutionist is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 08:33 AM   #61
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,423
Not exactly. Sellers set prices. The question is whether they adjust prices to what the market will bear or not. Overpriced items, as compared to what the normal market will bear, do not well well, but some sellers are comfortable with not selling a lot or are not willing to sell until the price that they set is met by a buyer.

If buyers set prices, I would be getting all my stuff for free.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 08:35 AM   #62
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,743
Sellers set ASKING prices.

The selling price is set by the buyer.

You can't get free stuff because sellers won't buy it in the first place if they are forced by the buyer to give it away.

On an individual level, the price has to be agreed by both parties. On scale, the average/typical/market price is controlled by the buyers.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 10:39 AM   #63
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 7,829
Actually, the final strike price is set by the buyer and seller completing a transaction. Neither, individually, set a strike price. This is fundamental supply and demand from economics 101.
Skans is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 11:43 AM   #64
L_Killkenny
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2007
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,676
I'm not one to deprive someone from making extra $$ (even lot's of extra $$) and in no way believe that someone raising their ammo/gun prices in anyway for any reason amounts gouging. It just ain't so. But I do have a problem with retailers buying out stock from other retailers. What it comes right down to is the are instilling a de facto local monopoly and removing competition. The only way they can get the $$$ they are getting is to do this and they dang well know and intentionally do this. Not illegal, shouldn't be illegal but I personally won't do any business with retailers doing this.
L_Killkenny is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 04:11 PM   #65
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,423
Quote:
Sellers set ASKING prices.

The selling price is set by the buyer.

You can't get free stuff because sellers won't buy it in the first place if they are forced by the buyer to give it away.
That is an interesting concept. So nobody is gouging. The buyers are demanding to pay more money? The problem is that the buyers are forcing sellers to increase prices? No. Sellers set the price, that is why I can't get free stuff. No, sellers would not be in business if buyers could set the price and make them give stuff away for free, LOL, but that would happen if buyers set prices.

We are, after all, talking about individual sellers who are gouging and so too then we are talking about individual buyers who are paying the gouged prices.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 04:58 PM   #66
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 7,829
Quote:
So nobody is gouging.
That's correct. Nobody is gouging anyone. Gun stuff is in very high demand. People who want mags, AR's, AK's, or whatever want what they want and will pay high prices for it. Sellers sell the stuff for as much as they can get, that's all. We're not even talking about food or gasoline, just guns and bullets.

Now, if someone hoarded up all of the corn supply in a particular area and set prices so high (relative to what they paid, like 1000%) that people are starving because of it, then maybe you can accuse the seller of price gouging.

No, what we have here are just buyers who should have known what was coming with this current administration, refused to prepare, and now they are having to pay prices maybe up to twice as much as about 1 year ago. I have no sympathy for them, none at all. Be glad with what you have; or pony up the money to buy what you failed to buy; or take the risk that you wont' ever be able to get it (or pay 10x for it) and wait to see if prices fall. You have comp

Last edited by Skans; January 31, 2013 at 05:25 PM.
Skans is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 07:10 PM   #67
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by DNS
That is an interesting concept. So nobody is gouging. The buyers are demanding to pay more money? The problem is that the buyers are forcing sellers to increase prices? No. Sellers set the price, that is why I can't get free stuff. No, sellers would not be in business if buyers could set the price and make them give stuff away for free, LOL, but that would happen if buyers set prices.

We are, after all, talking about individual sellers who are gouging and so too then we are talking about individual buyers who are paying the gouged prices.

No.

The seller sets an asking price:

Seller: I will sell you this magazine for $5.

Buyer, OK.

Seller (to self): Hm, maybe $10 would work?

Next buyer: OK, I'll pay $10

Seller #2 (to self): #1 is getting $10, I bet I can get $15

Buyer: Hm, #1 has them for $10, #2 has them for $15... Hey #1, I'd like one, thank you.

#2 (to self): Darn, no one will pay $15. I'll charge $9.

Buyer: OOH! $9! Yes! I'll buy those!

Seller #1 is still at $10. That's his ASKING price. He can't sell them anymore... the buyer has set the price lower. The seller has two choices. Lower his asking price or not sell.


Who set the selling price? The buyer.

The buyer controls EVERYTHING. The seller wouldn't be able to stay in business without the buyer.
If the seller has to spend $5 to produce the widget that the buyer will only pay $4.50 to buy, will the seller be in business?
No.

If the seller can produce the widget for $5 and the buyer(s) will pay $1,000, guess what happens?
More sellers!

What ELSE happens? The new sellers ASK FOR LESS! If the SELLERS set the SELLING price, what would happen?
The original seller would still be getting $1,000 while everybody else gets $900. Why would the first seller lower his price if he was in control? Why would the new sellers sell for less if THEY were in control? The new sellers can't control the buyers and they want their business, so they entice them by OFFERING a lower price.

But the seller DOESN'T set the SELLING price. He ASKS for a certain amount but the BUYER sets the SELLING price. If the buyer won't buy, there is no SALE. The seller has NO control.

New sellers want a part of the market, so they appeal to the buyer by OFFERING the same item for less money. Do they WANT to sell it for less money? NO! They only do it because SELLING it for less is BETTER than NOT SELLING it for more!

The BUYER is in control.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.

Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; January 31, 2013 at 07:15 PM.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 07:14 PM   #68
BigD_in_FL
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: The "Gunshine State"
Posts: 1,981
Quote:
That is an interesting concept. So nobody is gouging.
Correct, you are finally getting it
BigD_in_FL is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 07:31 PM   #69
PatientWolf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2012
Location: NC
Posts: 372
I think it is a matter of level. I think in normal times, the gun shops I like best provide great service and offer slight discounts from retail list. During a shortage, some still offer a slight discount, but I can certainly understand them asking full retail price and wouldn't consider that gouging. If they are to the point where they cannot get enough merchandise to maintain their business or are dealing in collectables, they may even charge a slight premium.

I think where it become unethical is when they try to truly take advantage of a scare and try to charge more than 20% over list. I don't support these shops with my business.
PatientWolf is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 07:32 PM   #70
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
My problem was that I am 22, poor, and had just gone out on my own after college. I didn't have the cash reserves to *really* prepare for such a situation.

However I DID stretch my wallet in August/September to buy a $1200 firearm that is most likely worth $2k now. While I only have 500 rounds to speak for, I did do the smart thing and planned ahead with the cash reserves I had in advance.

Like I said earlier in this thread: People who claim that the market is "unethical" and we are being "gouged" right now are just one or two steps away from claiming that the market is "flawed" and we need more government oversight.

You are functionally no different from price controllers and subsidizers. While disliking "gouging" and advocating for "price control" are not the same thing, the inspiration for both stems from the same emotional response to basic economics. It is a disbelieve in the pure concept of liberty and freedom.

If you do not like the price, do NOT buy the product. Do NOT support the price. When a large portion of individuals mimic what you are doing and DO NOT purchase at those prices, you are going to force the suppliers to adjust to the market.

WHY IS THIS SUCH A DIFFICULT CONCEPT TO GRASP.
__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 07:40 PM   #71
BigD_in_FL
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: The "Gunshine State"
Posts: 1,981
Quote:
However I DID stretch my wallet in August/September to buy a $1200 firearm that is most likely worth $2k now.
Sell, take the profit and buy Exxon
BigD_in_FL is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 07:50 PM   #72
ohen cepel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 1999
Location: Where they send me
Posts: 1,013
No, it isn't.

All things vary in price at times. Many shops also get stuck holding inventory for long periods when it's not in style. Never saw a line of people offering to buy the unwanted inventory which the shop was stuck with at a fair price.
__________________
He who dares wins.

NRA Life Benefactor Member
ohen cepel is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 07:53 PM   #73
PatientWolf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2012
Location: NC
Posts: 372
Remember part of what is allowing the prices to be at the level they are at is the fact the often, people who would not be in the market for these items are scared and rushing out to add to the demand. It exacerbates the situation drastically.

That being said, I still believe that approximately SRP is a reasonable upper end for pricing. These prices are based around historically reasonably upper level mark-ups for mfr, distributor and retailer. Do I expect to see discounts when times are slow? Yes. But the discounts have gone away for the most part due to the current demand. That doesn't mean I believe a surcharge is reasonable.
PatientWolf is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 08:00 PM   #74
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatientWolf
I think where it become unethical is when they try to truly take advantage of a scare and try to charge more than 20% over list. I don't support these shops with my business.
How is that "unethical"?

What is so special about "list"?

"List" is an invention of the manufacturer, based on their assumption of what the buyer will pay as a max price. It's not like there's a Price Bible that dictates directly from The Great Beyond that Thou Shalt Not Charge More Than $50 For An AK Magazine.

Some products sell for far over MSRP, "List" price, every day.

Some products don't even HAVE a "List".


We all need to watch this video again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9QEkw6_O6w
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 08:27 PM   #75
PatientWolf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2012
Location: NC
Posts: 372
"List" is just where I draw my line in the sand. Likewise the level I describe as where I think it becomes unethical.

I know manufacturers spend a lot of effort to determine what the maximum price a reasonable person will pay for an item is, taking into account their costs and expected mark-ups at each level of sale.

It's true that some manufacturers sell above list every day, but not to me. I knw they can and do get the prices they ask, but at the price of alienating their customers. Some companies have built successful businesses on this model, but I try to avoid those companies.

The companies I prefer to deal with may occasionally charge higher than list, but if they do, they will bring some other, maybe less tangible, value to the transaction.
PatientWolf is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12892 seconds with 7 queries